1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of this case") pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land (Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act") on September 24, 1992 with respect to real estate stated in the purport of claim No. 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case").

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. 1) The instant real estate is based on the Plaintiff’s external evidence D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

A) The Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is one of the inheritors of the deceased. (2) Although the deceased had already died on or before May 30, 1955, the Defendant, on February 10, 1976, prepared a sales contract (Evidence A 10) with the deceased as the seller, and the Defendant as the buyer, it is obvious that the said sales contract was forged, and the registration of this case completed thereafter is null and void.

3. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of this case to the Plaintiff, one of the deceased’s successors.

B. In a case where registration of preservation of ownership was made under the Act on Special Measures for Determination, the registration was completed in accordance with the lawful procedure stipulated in the Act on Special Measures, even if there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of the land, and is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. As such, if a party seeks to reverse the presumption,

or falsely drawn up;

In other words, it is necessary to prove and prove that registration has not been completed lawfully due to any other reason. Here, the term “a false letter of guarantee” refers to the substantive contents that form the cause of alteration of rights are not true. Therefore, when it has been proven to the extent that the substantive contents of a letter of guarantee are not true, the presumption of registration is broken.